Why do most Navy craft use droque method and airforce craft use booms? I would think that the "Navy" method would be quicker and easier for pilots and tanker crews alike.

The only possible advantage to the boom style I can think of is a faster refuel rate and this may have to do with the AF using bigger gas guzzling planes.

Drogue on the other hand can refuel multiple planes.

SorryOciffer

It's due to pilot skill. Navy/Marine pilots are just more capable. They can actually fly thier aircraft to the drogue and in close proximity to other aircraft.

Heh, heh, heh...[:k]

I'm no expert having only been AAR'd in the USAF using a boom, but I think it is driven by the type of aircraft used as a tanker. The Navy uses smaller aircraft for their refueling. The USAF has dedicated large tankers that are built only for air to air refueling. I don't think either one is easier to use than the other. The boom probably is able to pass gas quicker but that's just the design of the boom not because the USAF jets need more than the Navy jets.

oh now you've done it!

My understanding is that the AF wanted the boom because it could fuel faster. The was especially critical during the Cold War when fast fueling B-52's was crucial.

Guess the refueling methods just carry on today. When I was in Europe, I saw a NATO KC-10 with both boom and drogue capabilities. Also the AF does have some drogue aircraft, but only for helicopters.

[img]http://www.pre-ban.com/forums/ranks/usmc-gsgt.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.pre-ban.com/forums/images/avatars/471897163ec56dcf95bbe.jpg[/img]
KC-130s with:
Low speed drogues in operation.
The receptacle is common to both modes,
with a larger doughnut shaped parachute drogue on the low speed configuration, creating
greater drag to pull the hose out to the
desired length at a much lower speed.  
[img]http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/ae82f18a8e1b160b852568ba007e7e5e/a77b75e7a980235685256c4f003848ec/$FILE/Refuel01.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/Lookup/200271324150/$file/CH53-22MEUlow.jpg[/img][img]http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/ae82f18a8e1b160b852568ba007e7e5e/7a55abafe91932ae85256b960053cd0e/$FILE/020313-M-7370C-056lo_res.jpg[/img]

...and now fitted with high speed drogues for higher performance aircraft like the Hornet
and Harrier. The KC-130 aircrew can set down
and QUICKLY change drogue assemblies as
mission requirements change.
[img]http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/ae82f18a8e1b160b852568ba007e7e5e/352903da30e48cbf852569e40078c47c/$FILE/year%20in%20review1thumbnail.jpg[/img][img]http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/ae82f18a8e1b160b852568ba007e7e5e/55fb66790b9f8f6e85256d320034202b/$FILE/Albania-KC-130-low.jpg[/img]

You're right about the size factor in
USAF aircraft. It's safer to pilot their fixed
refueling booms down to the receiving aircraft

[img]http://www.kc-10.net/kc10/photos/page01/kc10ar14.jpg[/img]
and it works well with high performance aircraft,

[img]http://www.af.mil/photos/Nov1999/19990124-F-0000a-003.gif[/img]